Barnes v. Andrews
District Court, S.D. New York
In Equity. Suit by Earl B. Barnes, as receiver of the Liberty Starters Corporation, against Charles Lee Andrews. Final hearing on a bill in equity, under section 91-a of the General Corporation Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 23), to hold liable the defendant as director for misprision of office. The corporation was organized under the laws of that state to manufacture starters for Ford motors and aeroplanes.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by Earl B. Barnes, as receiver of the Liberty Starters Corporation, against Charles Lee Andrews. Final hearing on a bill in equity, under section 91-a of the General Corporation Law of New York (Consol. Laws, c. 23), to hold liable the defendant as director for misprision of office. The corporation was organized under the laws of that state to manufacture starters for Ford motors and aeroplanes. On October 9/1919, about a year after its organization, the defendant took office as a director, and served until he resigned on June 21, 1920. During that period over $500,000 was…
1Opinion of the CourtLearned Hand, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). This cause may be divided into three parts: First, the defendant’s general liability for the collapse of the enterprise; second, his specific liability for overpayments made to Delano; third, his specific liability for the expenses of printing pamphlets and circulars used in selling the corporate shares.
[ 1 ] The first liability must rest upon the defendant’s general inattention to his duties as a director. He cannot be charged with neglect in attending directors’ meetings, because there were only two during his incumbency, and of these he was present at…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Briggs v. SpauldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Hun v. . CaryNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Bowerman v. HamnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Kavanaugh v. . Commonwealth Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Allen v. RoydhouseDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by19 opinions
- Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1994
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,959 Frank Lanza, Jr. v. Drexel & Co., Theodore J. Kircher and Christie F. VitoloCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1996
- Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.